On Sunday, the Whampoa Military Academy, founded by the Republic of China in 1924, celebrated its 100th anniversary. Taiwan and China held centennial celebrations, each laying claim to the institution’s lineage.
Several retired Taiwanese military officials accepted the Chinese Central Military Commission’s invitation to participate in commemorative activities in Guangdong, China, a decision that sparked objections and heated debate in Taiwan. Those officials are walking a fine line; any misstep could see them wading into the dangerous waters of treason by collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), far beyond mere cognitive warfare and “united front” tactics.
For those who hold the academy in high esteem, invoking the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) and National Security regulations, imposing constraints on these veterans is not only disrespectful, but also dismissive of their service. After all, they say, these veterans are no ordinary people; they attended military academies from childhood, trained to become professional soldiers and rose to the rank of general.
Then again, following pension reforms, they ended up with more favorable pensions than civil servants. It is no exaggeration to say that they live well off of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The state gives them this preferential treatment for defending the country and their loyalty. Even after returning to civilian life, it is only right that they uphold a high sense of duty and integrity, and identify with the country.
Based on these minimal standards, former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) serves as a relevant point of comparison. Born in China, he became a military strongman in Taiwan. He represented a generational shift, and no Whampoa graduate can claim to match his standards, sense of identity and significance.
Although he visited China multiple times and attended events commemorating war, he never once wavered in his beliefs. Hau was a staunch anti-communist, rejecting the legitimacy of the CCP and their self-serving historical narratives.
When visiting the Museum of the War of Chinese People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression in 2014, he refused the company of Chinese officials. Upon reading the museum’s introduction stating that “the CCP united and guided all ethnic groups across China,” he said that it was Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) who led the eight-year war against the Japanese. On multiple occasions, he corrected biased statements made by the museum guide, demanding they produce the “Declaration of Joint KMT-CCP Cooperation” to set the record straight.
Hau remained loyal to the Republic of China (ROC). Although he advocated peaceful “reunification,” he remained committed to the principle of “constitutional one China,” rooted in Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) Three Principles of the People (三民主義). Hau categorically rejected surrender, annexation and obliteration.
In 2017, Hau attended a symposium in Nanjing with then-Mainland Affairs Council minister Katharine Chang (張小月) and Veterans Affairs Council Deputy Minister Lee Wen-chung (李文忠).
According to Lee, Hau made three promises in confidence: to never enter CCP state bureaus, to never accept the hospitality of CCP officials and to never engage with media criticizing the ROC. He kept his word until the very end.
Hau visited China during the administration of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), of the KMT, and a second time during the administration of former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), of the Democratic Progressive Party. Despite serving under two different ruling parties, Hau remained steadfast in his views, defending the head of the Whampoa Military Academy as well as his own vision for the ROC.
Whampoa graduates today should emulate Hau. His implementation of three principles — no contact, no negotiation and no compromise — was a clear boundary against treason and collaboration with the CCP.
How can the Whampoa officials who chose to forsake these fundamental principles and become instruments of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army face their friends and fellow soldiers at home? Taiwan should not welcome them back.
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Gabrielle Killick
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian